So, in order to have a more useful discussion, perhaps someone can provide a clear, objective, measurable definition of "poor" or "poverty." When we have that, we can objectively look at that measure over time. We can also objectively look at the things that have contributed to its increase or decrease over time. We can also try to determine whether or not large groups of the same people have been stuck in that or have moved out of it over time.

It should also be noted that the some of the biggest harm to the poor and (to a slightly lesser extent) middle and lower middle classes are things like taxes, inflation, trade barriers, limited school choices.

Taxes are ultimately always paid by the consumers of goods and services. Since the poor have a higher propensity to consume they will be hurt by higher taxes throughout the economy and tax structure. Even if it doesn't appear that they are being taxed directly. Corporate income taxes, for example, are not paid by corporations...they're paid by the customers of that corporation.

Inflation erodes the value of the dollar. It benefits who gets the newly created money first. This is typically not the poor. And the poor, whose incomes tend to be more fixed, are hurt, again, disproportionately compared to other economics levels by inflationary monetary policies executed by The Fed.

Trade barriers tend to keep the prices of good and services higher than they would be in a more free trade environment. Again this will negatively affect the poor more than other economic levels because of their higher propensity to consume.

The poor have much less choice when it comes to schools. They are usually stuck with the, often, sub-standard public schools in their areas while those in higher economic levels have choices like home schooling and private schooling or even the option to move to better school districts.

Let's not even get started on housing and government's effects on raising prices there...

And I notice you're very careful not to say the poor have been helped through jobs. But that's the whole premise of "Trickle-down", not that goods and services will become more affordable through corporate profitability, but that the more money the rich and corporations keep, the more jobs will be created. Again, that's not happening.

Most people who are poor are temporarily so as noted by MJ. They are young adults or children. The long term poor, especially when measured by "households" are largely those who the government have grown into dependency. They are people who are single mothers, or those who have now steered themselves into the every growing Social Security Disability program (which is suddenly and massively growing with people claiming thing like ADHD as rendering them unable to work.)

MJ linked to this important point as well perhaps the most important points of all.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in singleparent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost threequarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

What is creating, growing and sustaining these single parent households that otherwise would not be sustainable? Government. Why do they avoid getting married and moving their "household" out of poverty? They do this because the government would suddenly declare there to be no problem and they would lose their assistance.

This isn't something I'm making up. This is something I absolutely experience as a teacher and landlord. The single mother and kids show up to rent and soon afterwards the perpetual "boyfriend" moves in. The "household" has to be established with government money and then afterwards the boyfriend shows up and everyone can sit home with the toys and let the government foots the bill.

The last I looked that election involving a second term hasn't been held yet.

You crack me up jimmac. It's the only reason I still read your posts. You are correct. But you know what I mean. You were pretty confident that we were in the "liberal part of the cycle" back then and that any idea of a Republican victory was quite ridiculous and that you'd remind us all how ridiculous after the November election.

You crack me up jimmac. It's the only reason I still read your posts. You are correct. But you know what I mean. You were pretty confident that we were in the "liberal part of the cycle" back then and that any idea of a Republican victory was quite ridiculous and that you'd remind us all how ridiculous after the November election.

Quote:

You were pretty confident that we were in the "liberal part of the cycle" back then

We still are.

This part if you're saying it came from me is simply made up by you :

Quote:

and that any idea of a Republican victory was quite ridiculous and that you'd remind us all how ridiculous after the November election

Please show me the quote where I said exactly this.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

In other words you can't. You'd rather color my words with your interpretation. As a matter of fact I seem to recall saying the democrats would probably lose some seats. But I'm sure you glossed right over that. The emperor has no clothes!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

He almost couldn't keep a straight face when he said it...which at least indicates that even he doesn't believe what he's saying...only that the American public is so fucking stupid it will just accept anything he says.

Other than that line from Obama, the best line was Stewart wondering if we can do all that and still afford the royalty checks Obama will need to send to George Orwell.

He almost couldn't keep a straight face when he said it...which at least indicates that even he doesn't believe what he's saying...only that the American public is so fucking stupid it will just accept anything he says.

Other than that line from Obama, the best line was Stewart wondering if we can do all that and still afford the royalty checks Obama will need to send to George Orwell.

Obama/Biden 2012: Because we're not fucked enough.

Or any of the consevative candidates because we want to be even more fucked.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

And I notice you're very careful not to say the poor have been helped through jobs. But that's the whole premise of "Trickle-down", not that goods and services will become more affordable through corporate profitability, but that the more money the rich and corporations keep, the more jobs will be created. Again, that's not happening.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Supply-side economics has been proven to be a failure. Keynes, not so much. There is zero poverty in several European countries thanks to Keynesian economics. Show me one country where there is no poverty due to supply-side economics. One. Just one. Any size.

I'd rather place my bets on the proven theories, instead of the ones that have been proven to fail.

And no, Keynesian economics has never really been tried, without "compromises" that make it useless, in the US. Actually, I take that back. It was tried with the New Deal. And it worked. It was tried by Kennedy. And it worked. Again.

You just don't want to hear the truth. Your world view doesn't fit with the truth, so you ignore it and deny it. Fact is, you'll keep hearing "this shit" until you get it. And the US won't EVER have reduced poverty until people in the US get it.

Fact is, believe it or not, I actually used to think what you think and believe what you believe and assume what you assume. But then I educated myself.

This is true, but the "it" is not what you think.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
You just don't want to hear the truth. Your world view doesn't fit with the truth, so you ignore it and deny it.

MJ :
Yeah,...that's it.

Yes that is it. You can't even back up your statements when pressed ( and I'm not just talking about the falsehood you posted about me ). You like to say a lot of things about your world view but in the end when you really are pressed your world view seems half baked.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

[U.S. Treasury Secretary (under FDR) Henry Morgenthau, Jr.]: No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…

But why not let’s come to grips? And as I say, all I am interested in is to really see this country prosperous and this form of Government continue, because after eight years if we can’t make a success somebody else is going to claim the right to make it and he’s got the right to make the trial. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.

Mr. Doughton: And an enormous debt to boot!

HMJr.: And an enormous debt to boot! We are just sitting here and fiddling and I am just wearing myself out and getting sick. Because why? I can’t see any daylight. I want it for my people, for my children, and your children. I want to see some daylight and I don’t see it…

All the pro-Austrian economic model propaganda that says that the New Deal was not an example of Keynesian success is mostly very recent. It's a concerted effort to revise history, and its existence is based on a very stubborn idealist agenda, not based on fact or evidence.

Actually, MJ, I've already read those links. And I found then, as I find now, that they are not factually based. They are ignoring aspects of the history of the period, and of business development, as well as that of the employment market, that are not convenient to the idealism they are trying to promote. I would write more on this subject, but you wouldn't listen anyway, and it would be a waste of my time. I don't need to make such efforts to promote my idealism at all, as I have history, as well as the current socioeconomic status of several European States on my side.

If I'm wrong, all you have to do is show me one example of a country where there is little or no poverty thanks to the Austrian model. That's all you have to do. But you won't, mostly because there isn't one, but also, because you loathe giving evidence (other than linking to opinion pieces), especially when it's asked of you.

The supply-siders' efforts to revise history are commendable for effort, but they are reprehensible for intellectual dishonesty.

And I found then, as I find now, that they are not factually based. They are ignoring aspects of the history of the period, and of business development, as well as that of the employment market...

Great! You want to deal in facts? Please share. What facts are wrong or missing? What specific, relevant aspects have been ignored and how do these affect the conclusions? I look forward to reading your fact and logic based rebuttals.

You've made this accusation before and failed to support this claim. You've done it here again. If it happens again we can only assume you're just blathering on in ad hominem rather than really engaging in discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

You haven't even provided responses to your own questions in your own poverty thread.

Are you trying to distract with irrelevancies? Plus we've all seen how frequently you avoid actually answering direct and reasonable questions so you're living in a glass house on this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

You are absolutely transparent in your tactics.

Perhaps you can tell me what these "tactics" are. You seem to think you can read my mind and are more interested in dealing intentions rather than actual statements and actions. Fine.

As I explained, there is much question as to the veracity and full context of those 'facts'. I disagree that they qualify as such. So I disagree that Jimmac, BR and I are ignoring any 'facts'.

But you have not shown which ones are wrong or inaccurate, you have only claimed it and hand waved these articles away. Perhaps because they don't fit with your view of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Meanwhile you are ignoring a few very blatant facts:

That what you are presenting as "blatant facts" is questionable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

There are several European countries that have followed a Keynesian economic model.

You seem to live in this strange fictional world in which things are all black and white. Your statement here (as well as your questions about Austrian economics) demonstrate both an ignorance of both of these monikers as well as the simplistic assumption that something is all one way or all another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

All of these countries have lower poverty than the US.

We've discussed the problems with the measures. You have failed to provide a single, objective measure so that we can make these comparisons properly. You refused to discuss this and reverted to anecdotal comparisons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

It's possible that a country's overall 'wealth' can increase while poverty also increases.

Yes, that's true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

It's possible that a country's overall 'wealth' can decrease while poverty also decreases.

Less likely, but possible, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

The idea that wealth creation absent other economic factors will decrease poverty is an unproven theory.

You are correct. I don't believe anyone is claiming this. Smells like a straw man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Fair enough. I'll start, in this thread, by providing a fair definition of poverty, and you can follow by providing yours.

My definition of poverty is actually the same as Nick's, with one qualifier:

Poverty is the inability to generate enough wealth to provide a reasonably humane and stable standard of living.

Your turn.

I already started:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I'm not a statistician or demographer, but if I were trying to create an objective measure of poverty I would start with some things like:

- earned income equal to or higher than personal spending
- ability to afford from self-earned income (i.e., without charitable or government assistance) enough food to satisfy basic housing, clothing and nutritional needs

I also agree that the ability to generate wealth is part of the equation. Since I'm searching for more objective ways to say that, I would say the ability to consume (spend) less than they produce (earned income). Which is basically my first point. This can be measured objectively.

We'd need to determine what "basic housing, clothing and nutritional needs" means objectively. The nutritional one can probably be measured in the ability to afford a certain number of calories per person, per day. Housing might be a minimum square footage of shelter. Not sure.

As to yours...first, thank you for finally offering one.

Second, what I'd like to get to is something more objective than the words like "reasonably humane" standard of living offer. How can we make that definition more objectively measurable? Because, frankly, it is open to widely ranging interpretation and opinion about what is "reasonable" and what is "humane."